OK, three affirmatives. And I believe you. Damn. Now I'll have to think of something else . . . And I will, I will . . .<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>

Isn't it interesting how they process their voices? I'm talking about the clinton video originally posted at the top of this thread by garyW. Clinton and the reporter both wear lavalier mics with the same sensitivity, same patterns, and everything. But they've run the reporter's mic basically dry, and they're running Clinton's voice through a bit of reverb, biasing it toward the lower partials of her voice. Sounds very homey. They're standing there 3 feet from each other, in the same acoustics, but their voices sound like they're in different rooms. Makes her sound apart from the reporter, and I assume more presidential. Now, Fox doesn't have to do this. They can do it the other way and make Clinton sound very small. These are choices they have to make for every single person they ever put on a microphone. They may use the same setup as the last interview, or they may alter it. Most of the time, the sound guy is going to try to make everyone sound like they are in the same space, and sound good. Giving the different people different reverbs and EQ is another means of creating spin on their presence. I look forward to hearing how they process the different candidates, or for that matter, anyone in the news. It's something many people might not be aware is working on their overall perception. Very interesting.<br><br>Shooshie<br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>

For Lea:<br>More Data that suggests McCain won’t do that well in the general election unless he distances himself from Bush and the current Neocons.<br><br>Direction of Country: 22% satisfied – 72% dissatisfied <br>McCain represents “more of the same”, esp Iraq, tax cuts, big business first, .... people want Change . McCain is "old Guard"<br><br>Favorability ratings:<br>.............+ . Neutral .. -<br>H Clinton 37 ... 15 ... . 48<br>J McCain 44 ... 20 ... . 25<br>B Obama 49 ... 18 ... . 32<br><br>Better than Hillary but behind Obama. But I think he’s very vulnerable… <br>The Al Quada gaffe and his lack of knowledge and experience on economics, makes him ripe for stumbling. I just think Obama can think on his feet much better than McCain and should pummel McCain in a real debate.<br><br><br>David (OFI)

<br>... because it is drawn out so long that it simply has no means of accommodating potential changes.<br><br>Elections, to be democratic, should offer each voter an equal playing field, and that is clearly not the case.<br><br>If candidate A, after winning the first few races, does something really stupid, the voters in the first few states would have cast their votes, without this stupidity entering into their decisions. That being the case, should the party nominate Candidate A, despite of that? Or should, instead, the Convention give the electorate a chance, to vote once again at the Convention, taking all prior events into account?<br><br>So, my feeling is that demanding a strict vote counting procedure, which is arrived at in such different ways - elections, caucuses, timing - makes for an interesting series of polls, but it isn't a democratic election.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

what we're dealing with right now are party politics; not our national democracy in action even if these results end up affecting the national elections given that we're really a 2 party system. Hillary's lawyers tried to sue Nevada to not allow a caucus site near casinos and the courts more or less said, this is not the general election and is just party politics in action. each party can make their own rules and even individual states can make up their own rules (e.g., caucus or primary or online voting or paper, etc.). if the national party chooses not to include Michigan or Florida then the party can get away with it. interestingly enough, New Hampshire actually moved their primary up against the national party's wishes. they received no penalty. Michigan and Florida moved up and they're not included. the parties have control.<br><br>the length of this process is part of the vetting process, so it's not all bad; however, typically the process is pretty much over after a month or 2 at most. i think the parties would do well to learn from this fiasco and build a better process for the future, but apparently this process came as the result of screw ups in the past. go figure. <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So, my feeling is that demanding a strict vote counting procedure, which is arrived at in such different ways - elections, caucuses, timing - makes for an interesting series of polls, but it isn't a democratic election.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Fiddlesticks. It may not seem like democracy but I think it's just fine. We stretch it out so we can chat about our selections ad nauseum. Sure we talk about weak as[/i]s shi[i]t like who's preacher is better but that is important to some. If we went with a straight selection six months ago we would have Clinton vs Guiliani. We're going to pick Obama and McCain and then we are going to spend the entire summer and fall chatting about it before we vote. If the November vote is a referendum on the misery which Bush has caused at home and abroad then we have a Democrat in the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. Or we continue our insanity and elect McCain for eight years.<br><br>What is undemocratic about that? <br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.